JERUSALEM, Israel - Israeli archaeologists said on Wednesday they had discovered the first physical evidence supporting Old Testament accounts of Bethlehem's existence centuries before the town became revered as the birthplace of Jesus.The proof came, they said, in a clay seal unearthed near the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem and imprinted with three lines of ancient Hebrew script that include the word "Bethlehem".

Eli Shukron, who directed the excavation on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, said the seal apparently had been placed on a tax shipment of silver or agricultural produce sent from Bethlehem to the King of Judah in nearby Jerusalem in the 8th or 7th century BC.

"This is the first time the name Bethlehem appears outside the Bible in an inscription from the First Temple period," Shukron said in a statement, referring to the years 1006 BC to 586 BC.

The coin-sized remnant of the seal proves that Bethlehem - first mentioned in the Book of Genesis - "was indeed a city in the Kingdom of Judah, and possibly also in earlier periods", he said.Bethlehem is located on the West Bank, just south of Jerusalem.

And then, she said "See? The bible is a true story! There's evidence!"

How pathetic! A shard is found with about 3 or 4 markings on it, interpreted to be consonants, as the language had no vowels, and these scratchings now prove the existence of a thriving city miles away? I'm glad the discoverer's aren't jewish, as that would raise a question of bias.

So if a dog's butt looks like jesus, is that proof of an arisen savior?

How pathetic! A shard is found with about 3 or 4 markings on it, interpreted to be consonants, as the language had no vowels, and these scratchings now prove the existence of a thriving city miles away? I'm glad the discoverer's aren't jewish, as that would raise a question of bias.

So if a dog's butt looks like jesus, is that proof of an arisen savior?

It's not really that far out of the question, this falls neatly within the only time period in which we do have evidence to support at least some of the claims of the OT as history. Which begins around the 8th century BCE, the only circumspect conclusion is that this was part of the 'greater' kingdom of Judah as if a Kingdom of Judah actually existed as described. Archaeology paints a different history from this, where there were two separate kingdoms in southern and northern Israel which is later united under the religious reforms of King Josiah. ( 7-6th century BCE ).

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Critics such as Richard Dawkins argue that religious belief often involves delusional behavior.[28] American author Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation compares religion to mental illness, saying it "allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy."[44]

There are also psychological studies into the phenomenon of mysticism, and the links between disturbing aspects of certain mystic's experiences and their links to childhood abuse.[45][46][47] In another line of research, Clifford A. Pickover explores evidence suggesting that temporal lobe epilepsy may be linked to a variety of spiritual or ‘other worldly’ experiences, such as spiritual possession, originating from altered electrical activity in the brain.[48] Carl Sagan, in his last book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, presented his case for the miraculous sightings of religious figures in the past and the modern sightings of UFOs coming from the same mental disorder. According to Professor Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, "It's possible that many great religious leaders had temporal lobe seizures and this predisposes them to having visions, having mystical experiences."[49] Dr. Michael Persinger stimulated the temporal lobes of the brain artificially with a magnetic field using a device nicknamed the "God helmet," and was able to artificially induce religious experiences along with near-death experiences and ghost sightings.[50] Neuropsychology Professor John Bradshaw also says:

Some forms of temporal lobe tumours or epilepsy are associated with extreme religiosity. Recent brain imaging of devotees engaging in prayer or transcendental meditation has more precisely identified activation in such sites — God-spots, as Vilayanur Ramachandran calls them. Psilocybin from mushrooms contacts the serotonergic system, with terminals in these and other brain regions, generating a sense of cosmic unity, transcendental meaning and religious ecstasy. Certain physical rituals can generate both these feelings and corresponding serotonergic activity.[51]

I'm new here and aren't religious or anything like that though I am kind of scared of burning in Hellfire for ever. There's a couple questions I want to ask you people, first off do you think that some parts of the Bible could be true but others aren't? For example, God may have lost a bet with the Devil or something stupid like, or just wanted his say in the Bible so maybe he put like one things down or told someone to put some things down from him and those specific parts of the Bible are true and the other's aren't? Also would God punish people for not following that specific part of the Bible or something? I know I'm probably going to get made fun of but these are just random thoughts that have been running past my head for the last couple days.

Next I was asking myself if God did love his children why, oh why would he send them to Hell and have them burn forever? I came across this passage and was hoping someone intelligent on here would be nice enough to retort it.

"Yes, God must punish those who break His law because it is the right thing to do. Just as a parent should punish a child for doing something wrong (intentionally), so God must punish those who do wrong. You see, if God did not punish the person who does wrong, then He would be unjust and unrighteous. He would be breaking His own law -- which He cannot do. But, someone might say that the punishment of a parent on a child is temporary whereas God's punishment is eternal. Why the difference? The answer is two fold. First, God is infinite and a parent is not. Second, God is the standard of all righteousness and the parent is not.

Because God is infinite, when we sin, we are offending an infinite God. This is incredibly significant. The reason sin is so bad is not so much because of the one committing the sin, but because of the One who is offended. In other words, sin is so incredibly bad because it takes on a horrible quality by the very fact of who it is against: an infinitely pure, holy, and righteous God.

A parent is not the standard of righteousness. God is. A parent is (or should be) using the righteous standard of God in raising children. Therefore, though a parent's punishment is temporary because it is instruction and correction, the punishment of God is eternal because our sin is against an eternal God. There is a big difference."

The only use for a consequence is that it changes future behaviour. For it to acheive its only goal, it must also be a logical consequence. The consequence has to logically follow the antecedent behaviour.

If a deity has any understanding of the human brain, it would not have a consequence that is so useless. If the quoted individual believes in a deity who is infintely incompetent, then there is no counter argument.

To explain the ^^, what he is saying is that the very intention of punishment is to prevent things from re-ocurring. However, where is the learning potential in an endless punishment? Why would god have a need for a hell? Why would god give satan the best gift he could give to a devil? These are questions that obviously make no sense for a deity that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and good and righteous in every way.

Such a god would have methods that work better than simple death, or eternal judgement. For example, an all-powerful god would have no need to judge any of us - he could just perfect us instead. An all-knowing god would also know how to accomplish that. A good god would also not want to torture people, even for a day. Consider these things carefully, then when you go back and think about hell, remember it was in fact made up by man to enforce control via fear. It's still existing today, to many people like you.

Don't be afraid - if there is a god - there's absolutely no need for hell or judgement. None. I have better methods, myself. We would want you to learn, not suffer unreasonably. And that's IF there is a god - if there isn't, then neither is there a satan, or a hell, etc.

I mean to help you a lot here, bud..

« Last Edit: June 04, 2012, 06:30:10 PM by jeremy0 »

Logged

"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger.""If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me. Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Because God is infinite, when we sin, we are offending an infinite God. This is incredibly significant.

Oddly enough, Sebastian, I see it the exact opposite way.

If this god you speak of is infinite, wouldn't everything else in the universe be infinitesimal by comparison? How could "sin" even register on the radar of such a being? I see the most vile actions of the very worst of humans as a mere spark of activity, barelynoticeable against a background of 14 billion years and invisible, for all practical purposes, when measured against eternity.

(Springy G pauses to sip Her single-malt Scotch and reminisces about the Life, the Universe and Everything vision She had circa 1968) My $0.02; guess you had to be there.

Because God is infinite, when we sin, we are offending an infinite God. This is incredibly significant.

Oddly enough, Sebastian, I see it the exact opposite way.

If this god you speak of is infinite, wouldn't everything else in the universe be infinitesimal by comparison? How could "sin" even register on the radar of such a being? I see the most vile actions of the very worst of humans as a mere spark of activity, barelynoticeable against a background of 14 billion years and invisible, for all practical purposes, when measured against eternity.

(Springy G pauses to sip Her single-malt Scotch and reminisces about the Life, the Universe and Everything vision She had circa 1968) My $0.02; guess you had to be there.

I agree-- how can a finite being offend an infinite being? Why would such a being even care about the behavior of entities that last a blink of its eye? The more we learn about the vastness of the universe, the less sense it makes to have a god paying attention to anything we do.

Do I really care about whether a speck of bacteria behaves itself? What it eats or what position it takes as it reproduces? Whether it worships me, prays to me, or ignores me? Even if I created it myself in a lab, and therefore "owned" it? If I destroyed it, it would have nothing to do with it not behaving morally--and I would never torment it forever under any circumstances. Only a sadist would do that.

I'm with y'all. Sebastian's quote up there approaches the top 10 dumbest things I've ever heard. If gawd is the standard for righteousness, should we not then stive to follow his example? Should we not then condemn those who sin to as everlasting torture as we can manage? Should we not injure and kill an innocent as a lesson for the guilty, as gawd does? Are we not *obligated* to do so???

Logged

...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

A parent is not the standard of righteousness. God is. A parent is (or should be) using the righteous standard of God in raising children. Therefore, though a parent's punishment is temporary because it is instruction and correction, the punishment of God is eternal because our sin is against an eternal God. There is a big difference."

I think the standard of righteousness has neither to do with god nor (directly) with your parents.

You are saying that you think that a parent should be using the 'righteous standard of God' in raising children. Why do you think that the 'rightoues standard of God' should be used? Often religious people think that their Religion defines moral and ethic standards. In my opinion, moral and ethic standards are defined by the people which live in a community with these standards and by common sense. I know that beating a child is wrong, I do not need Religion to know for myself that this is wrong nor do I need a God to understand this.

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

Isn't this practically saying that everyone has sinned and therefore will burn forever in hell? Correct me if I'am wrong but this would say that actually none of the Christians would ascend into heaven (assumed haven would exist)and therefore none of their lives would have a 'further sense'?

How about instead of discussing the probabilities of god's existence. How about the probabillities if Jesus did exist, the probability that he had a disorder or god syndrome. By someone saying they speak directly to a higher power, or simply hearing god's voice(schizophrenia), Jesus did say he was god's only son, or god in human flesh(god syndrome). The fact about interpretations of a 2000 year old book is that I'm sure but of course not positive, only knowing today's statistics of Christians thinking the end is near. But by that I'm sure in every generation before this the christian or catholic believed the end is near. The world will always have natural catastrophes and wars, until religion and other human stupidity is gone.

I’d like to start by pointing at revelations in the bible; most of them have been proven to become true. So, if anyone would like to shed some light on this, like “maybe all those prophecies have been manipulated after they actually happened” either way, I think WWII allowed Jews to return to their holly land, which is something pretty much unique in history, for we know (as an example) American natives will never recover their land.

Now there is this Jewish Christian group earning popularity, which is making Jesus part of their beliefs in Israel, something most of us would have imagine impossible. And I’m concerned about the possibility of missing reality because of arrogance.

Since nobody can prove God’s existence, neither his non-existence, I would like to discuss on this forum about what is more likely to be the truth.

Even though this is a bit off topic. If god cared, why'd he show up 98,000 years after humans were already existent? That's a bit late. Why in such an uncivilized area and not a more civilized area like china? It's only one part of the world he showed up in, wouldn't he of made himself obvious to the world and not one of the most uncivilized undeveloped parts of the world? Obviously you won't be able to answer these questions because you don't know and makes Christianity seem faulty, with more holes in it than evolution and natural selection. The earliest hominids are 4.4 million years old, evolution obviously happened, which contradicts the bible and makes the bibles testimonials of unintelligent people look even more faulty. You have to understand that testimonials will never be considered evidential to any atheist or skeptic in general. Look at James Randi, how many psychics that had claimed that had psychic powers and he just shit on them all over his show. Look at the testimonials on ghost hunters, we see the evidence of ghosts pounding on doors, little electrical voices, and see the guy saying 'if you hear us light up the red light', and it does, but we still all know it's faked. Human testimonials can never be considered evidential without actual evidence. Humans lie, you have to realize that.

Even though this is a bit off topic. If god cared, why'd he show up 98,000 years after humans were already existent? That's a bit late. Why in such an uncivilized area and not a more civilized area like china? It's only one part of the world he showed up in, wouldn't he of made himself obvious to the world and not one of the most uncivilized undeveloped parts of the world?

Somebody's been watching Hitchens videos. Good for you. He's a beast. I cried the day he died.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Even though this is a bit off topic. If god cared, why'd he show up 98,000 years after humans were already existent? That's a bit late. Why in such an uncivilized area and not a more civilized area like china? It's only one part of the world he showed up in, wouldn't he of made himself obvious to the world and not one of the most uncivilized undeveloped parts of the world?

Somebody's been watching Hitchens videos. Good for you. He's a beast. I cried the day he died.

I can't believe he died either! Definitely a sad day, he was one of the smartest journalists ever, the four horseman videos, I thought it was amazing he could conversate for hours with scientists and biologists, when he's just a journalist. Great debater, he was a courageous guy.

first off do you think that some parts of the Bible could be true but others aren't?

Yes, sure some parts in the Bible are true whilst others are not. I just think the Bible is mistaken by Christians for what it was actually intended to be.

Woah, woah, woah. Stop right there, John. Listen to what you just said - some parts of the bible are true. Don't confuse truth with 'right'. You should be saying 'I agree with some parts of the bible, and that's why I continue to believe in it.' I think that is most people's stance on religion, anyway - it closely aligns with whatever they wanted to believe in the first place, and they agree at least in part with it.

Take the recent recall from a 'top atheist blogger', as it was said in the news, becoming Catholic. First, her husband is Catholic. She said basically her reasoning was she wanted to believe, and Catholicism, even though she disagrees with some things, most closely aligned with her sense of morality.

Had I said to myself - I want to be in a religion again, I would actually go with Bhuddism. Even though I can't spell it correctly... My morality most closely aligns with that kind of deity and that kind of religious teachings. The bhuddist god isn't an evil dude. Plus 1,000,000 points in my book. They teach you to put yourself above 'sufferings' - to allow you to find internal peace and internal joy - how to overcome negative things and replace it with positive things. That's my sense of morality. And it's a good one. Even though there is still some additional wisdom here in Christianity, or Catholicism, or even Islamists that the people of that time wanted to leave behind, there are also some really nasty stuff that if you take it at face value, you've destroyed your morality instead of enhancing it. Yes, some things in all of these religions are meant to teach you lessons in life that somebody wanted to leave behind. That's the basis of every religion.

But, don't go saying 'truth', when in fact the only things we can determine to be true are things we can study and analyze. In fact, most things point to the truth being that there are no deities, at the current time, with what I've seen logically here and everywhere else on the internet with science. That doesn't mean in some other dimension it's not a possibility, but through logical reasoning we can actually invalidate every religion out there. And that leaves the rest of it looking like craziness that you're better off ignoring.

For example - before I was a rationalist. I had to ignore everything about my religion and concentrate only on jesus. Even then, I had to ignore some of the things he did/said. He's not actually an all-righteous dude if you really, really pay attention. He said some pretty awful stuff, he intended things even worse. He basically called himself righteous and showed everyone else they are damned demons. He even said multiple times he would damn everybody, and also multiple times that by God's grace it was more or less a gift given to us for eternal peace and life. That's some major back-and-forth. His words aren't jibberish - it's just organized like a maze is all. Once you see the whole maze, you'll know he was just a guy - like you and me.

So while yes, even as a rationalist I can agree with some parts of every religion, I disagree with major parts of every religion, and to me that justifies my stance. It should justify yours as well. Just don't go calling something true in place of 'I agree with this'...

"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger.""If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me. Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Religious texts have truth the same way Star Trek has truth. In addition, when compared to most major religions, Star Trek is:--more entertaining --better written--less violent--less racist--less sexist--more educational--more kid-friendly--more internally consistent and --has better outfits. Plus a lot of the stuff predicted in Star Trek has actually come true.[1]

Even though this is a bit off topic. If god cared, why'd he show up 98,000 years after humans were already existent? That's a bit late. Why in such an uncivilized area and not a more civilized area like china? It's only one part of the world he showed up in, wouldn't he of made himself obvious to the world and not one of the most uncivilized undeveloped parts of the world?

Certainly not a valid point. The middle east was the crossroads to all major civilizations. Certainly would be a good area for a new religion to start and then spread. Not China or Africa.

Quote

Obviously you won't be able to answer these questions because you don't know and makes Christianity seem faulty, with more holes in it than evolution and natural selection.

What?

Quote

The earliest hominids are 4.4 million years old, evolution obviously happened, which contradicts the bible and makes the bibles testimonials of unintelligent people look even more faulty.

Even though this is a bit off topic. If god cared, why'd he show up 98,000 years after humans were already existent? That's a bit late. Why in such an uncivilized area and not a more civilized area like china? It's only one part of the world he showed up in, wouldn't he of made himself obvious to the world and not one of the most uncivilized undeveloped parts of the world?

Certainly not a valid point. The middle east was the crossroads to all major civilizations. Certainly would be a good area for a new religion to start and then spread. Not China or Africa.

What time period are you talking about? The M-E was a crossroads for ideas and goods for hundreds of years, but was not what we would consider 'civilized' in today's terms until 1000-1500 CE, after the advent of Islam. By then, China and India had created flourishing civilizations for thousands of years already.

All this begs the question of why an all-knowing, or even reasonably-aware being would have to leave his most important teachings in only one place in the world to begin with, crossroads or no. What kind of a joker god would hand out this very disjointed collection of hard to interpret poetry, stories, lessons, histories, parables?

At a time when most cultures were orally transmitted and most people were illiterate, what was the point of a book anyway? It would have to be re-copied by hand and translated into different languages for hundreds of years-- with no mistakes. This book would then have to be physically transported all over the world by missionaries for the next couple of millenia.

How could this make any sort of sense for a supernatural person or force? Couldn't he beam the info into everyone's head at once, or leave the book already recorded in the important local languages on every populated continent? Any group of humans of average intelligence could come up with a better way to get the word of god out. We mere mortals have figured out how to transmit info quickly and securely to anyone in the world. Did god have something against fax machines, cell phones, internet or satellites?

I have always wondered why majority of christians think that it is agnostics and atheists who are responsible to proove that God does not exist. Why it is not other way around?

Bible isn´t a proof for anything.

It is historical in a way that it has been written in a certain timeframe and is tied to a historical / cultural context of that time. But like in all "historical" writing of that time, myths and legends were always mixed into a real data. So there is some real in it.. but we can always think that are the miraculous events real? I think they are not.

And is it word of God, logical guidebook that reveals the salvational plan of God to all mankind? Well anyone who has read Bible knows that the word "logical" isn´t the first that comes to mind.

So why didn’t God write scriptures that were easy for all of us to understand, and not so open to sinful interpretations?

That is the $1,000,000 question... Even the oldest accessable scriptures were copied by hired scribes who may or may not have ever heard the stories which were handed down by oral tradition from countless generations and translated from language to language. (Have you ever played the telephone game?) And then a bunch of Catholic men decided which books should stay or go according to their agenda which was most likely what would be most profitable to the church. I think some bits of truth survived as they are cooberated in writings of different faiths. I do study scripture and writings of eastern and other religions just because I like to but I don't think the existence of god is meant to be proven. Perhaps Archie Bunker said it best -- “It ain’t supposed to make sense; it’s faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe.”

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

...think about hell, remember it was in fact made up by man to enforce control via fear.

I have a theory (as yet unproven) that hell was invented by men to keep women down. At some point in ancient history men became jealous, threatenened, intimidated, and/or whatever by women (and maybe effeminate men) and that's why they thought up hell, criminalized sex, homosexuality, and made up all the other crap to supress, oppress and possess women. Of course I haven't documented this but I am searching for clues.

...there's absolutely no need for hell or judgement. None. I have better methods, myself.

The ultimate punishment is to be locked in a small room of circus mirrors with a flickering flourescent light, piped in Barry Manilow music, wearing unmatched polyester plaids.

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

xianity corroborates the hebrew bible because it uses the hebrew bible. Islam corroborates the xian bible because mohammed was passingly familiar with xianity. Other religion corroborate the abrahamic religions only in that they share a few broad moral tennets. That fact is more easily explained by evolution than god. the human animal is a social animal and in order to work in groups it had to develop rules. We call these rules "morals". Our short hand description is "Right and Wrong" or "Good and Evil". But really, they are just social lubricant that keeps hairless talking apes from killing each other over food, mates, pretty rocks and the sale at WalMart.

Some similarities also reflect basic strategy and game theory. xianity was all "love your enemy", but that was because at the time, they were a powerless minority. Believe it or not, Mohammed said the same thing early in his career. It was at the time that muslims were a powerless minority. Once he got a bigger gang in Medina his message changed to "kill the infidels". xianity never got to that point because by time it became powerful (politically), the formative religious leaders were gone and the religion was defined.

In other words, the messages reflect the politics of the situation. Similar situations beget similar messages. Nothing spooky or supernatural about it.

I used to think that too. However, I gave up that notion because I cannot for the life of me understand why that would be. Why the cosmic game of hide and seek? Why would faith be important to an omnimax god? Why is faith supposedly the criterion of judgment, the way to avoid infinite torture?

Perhaps Archie Bunker said it best -- “It ain’t supposed to make sense; it’s faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe.”

Archie was succinct. But why should we believe things that nobody in their right mind would believe? By saying nobody in their right mind would believe them, does that not mean faith is insanity? How in the world is that a good thing?

Perhaps Archie Bunker said it best -- “It ain’t supposed to make sense; it’s faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe.”

Archie was succinct. But why should we believe things that nobody in their right mind would believe? By saying nobody in their right mind would believe them, does that not mean faith is insanity? How in the world is that a good thing?